Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Steven Den Beste's essay
Published on January 28, 2006 By Draginol In Pure Technology

Steven Den Beste's site seems to be down but I had a copy fo an article he wrote some time ago that talks about the reason why Noah's Arc is a fairy tale.  There are many many reasons why Noah's Arc is fiction but this is one of the better arguments I've seen.

Steven's site is located here.

I just had the distinct displeasure of encountering someone who is a Biblical literalist (and who actually believes that all evidence supports the fairy tale of Noah's Ark). Let's review the story, briefly:

God decides that the human race is sinful and wants to destroy it. But Noah is virtuous and God warns him about the upcoming catastrophe and tells him to build an Ark (a big ship) and to load it with breeding stock of animals, so as to repopulate the earth. Noah does this, and with his wife and three sons and their wives embarks on the ship. God then covers the earth with water for 40 days and 40 nights, drowning all animals. (It's not completely clear how this would harm whales and seals, but let that go.) Then the water begins to recede and Noah's Ark grounds on Mount Ararat. He releases his animals and the world is repopulated.

This is ecological nonsense. If the whole flora of the world was released from a single point, most of it wouldn't survive and they sure wouldn't be found where they are today.

It's also genetic nonsense. There are a lot of ways of showing this, but one is particularly unambiguous: human Y chromosomes. Nearly all the genetic information each of us carries comes from both our parents. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and one of each comes from our mothers and one from our fathers. One pair controls the sex of the child. One of these is normal sized and the other is extremely small (relatively speaking), and they're called "X" and "Y" respectively. (But the Y chromosome still carries millions of codons.)

In mammals, XX is female and XY is male. (This is not universal. In birds, XX is male and XY is female. In some insect species, females are diploid and males are haploid. And when you look at plants, sex isn't determined by genetics at all.)

Each human parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the baby, in egg and sperm. The egg always has an X chromosome and the sperm may have an X or a Y (unless there's an abnormality, about which more in a moment). If the sperm has an X then the resulting fertilized egg is XX, thus female. If the sperm has a Y then the fertilized egg is XY, male.

So the sperm cell determines the sex of the child (in mammals). But sometimes when the egg or sperm are formed there's a mistake, and they get more or less than 23 chromosomes. This can happen with any of the chromosomes. When it happens with the sex chromosomes you get individuals who may have three or one instead of the normal two.

If the egg forms wrong and has no X, and if the sperm cell has a Y, then you get a fertilized egg with a Y chromosome but no X chromosome. This egg isn't viable. The X chromosome contains genetic information without which a baby can't develop; the result is a miscarriage (so early, in fact, that the mother may not realize she's been pregnant).

The other three abnormal situations all result in children. If there's only one X chromosome ("Turner's syndrome") then the person looks female. XXY ("Kleinfelter's syndrome") is male. XYY (sometimes called the "supermale") is also male.

The development of male features is controlled by the presence of testosterone in the baby in the womb. This in turn is stimulated by the presence of the Y chromosome. There is, however, an extremely rare condition where the genes which describe the testosterone receptors are damaged, and in such an individual testosterone will be ignored even if it is present. The genes describing those receptors are not on the sex chromosomes but it's possible for them to be present in a person who has a Y chromosome, and if this happens the resulting person will look female. However, such a person will also be sterile, because no ovaries form.

The point is this: if a person is fertile and has a Y chromosome, then that person will be male.

I am male. I have a mother and a father. I got my X chromosome from my mother and my Y chromosome from my father.

Each of them also had two parents, so I have two grandfathers. My father's father gave his Y chromosome to my father. My mother's father gave his X chromosome to my mother.

I got my Y chromosome from my father and he got it from his father. I carry my paternal grandfather's Y chromosome. He got it from his father, and from his paternal grandfather, etc.

My mother got one of her two X chromosomes from her father and one from her mother. There's a 50% chance that the X chromosome I carry came from my maternal grandfather, but no chance whatever that I carry his Y chromosome. (He gave his Y chromosome to my mother's brother, but I'm not descended from my uncle.)

I have many male ancestors but my Y chromosome only came from one of them. I have many male ancestors but only one by strict patrilineal descent. They're the same person. That doesn't mean I have no genetic information from any of my other male ancestors; there are 22 other chromosomes to talk about and I may have gotten some of them from other men way back when. But the Y chromosome itself can only have come from one place, and it is from my strict patrilineal ancestor. My lineage from all my other male ancestors includes at least one intervening woman, and at that step their Y chromosomes were not passed on.

If any two men have the same strict patrilineal ancestor, no matter how far back, then those two men will have the same Y chromosome.

Which brings us back to Noah. According to the story, the ark carried 8 people: Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Genetically only five are important, because the three sons carried no genetic information not present in Noah and his wife.

So if the story is true then the entire human race is descended from just five individuals. And four of them were women; Noah is the only man among the five. 10 sex chromosomes, and nine of them are X. Of the ten, only one was a Y. Noah carried it and passed it on to his three sons.

And they passed it on to their sons, and their grandsons, and great grandsons, and ultimately to all living men. So if the Noah story is true then every existing Y chromosome in men should be identical because they'll all be copies of the one carried by Noah.

And they aren't. Human Y chromosomes have been tested many times and they are not all the same. There is enormous variety among them. It is impossible for all human men to have the same strict patrilineal ancestor.

Therefore the Noah story is not true.

 


Comments (Page 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Jan 31, 2006
didn't say He wasn't. I was talking solely about my (and humanity's) abilities, not G-d's.


My bad, I misread that. I'm sorry Leauki.

I see Him outside the box of reality. In my example the creator of the world with the knights and the castle was outside the reality of that world. That's how I see G-d.


Gotcha.

wrote an article about this subject here: http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=8279


I'll check it out.

on Jan 31, 2006

No, it's a written account by eyewitnesses. Better than a theory.

Who were these eyewitnesses and what did they witness?  If you are referring to the New Testament, its writings started 40 years after Jesus dies.  Considering that humans only lived to be 40-45 years old back then, it's doubtful that those people actually knew Jesus.

 

on Jan 31, 2006
Considering that humans only lived to be 40-45 years old back then, it's doubtful that those people actually knew Jesus.


While this may be true there are always exceptions no? If could also be said that Shakyamuni Buddha did not exist either...
on Jan 31, 2006

Re "Who witnessed the creation"

God. He is the only eyewitness account we have. No other "religion" even suggests an eyewitness.

He gives us the details and even asks Job himself, "Where were you when I set the foundation of the world?"

Ah, the magical super being. There's your answer. 

And you "know" God did this because someone else said God did and put it into a book.  Maybe it wasn't God. Maybe it was a transdimensional group of mice?  Or maybe 6 green fairies. 

Saying tha ta magical super being witnessing creation is "Better" than a theory is just crazy talk.

on Feb 01, 2006
Yeah. When I ask probing questions, I always get something like that.

My major annoyance is this: I actually had read the entire bible. From cover to cover. I am not religious freak, in fact, I'm bit more than just atheist. Yet so many of them don't know details in it. Or they do but try to steer away from views in it that conflict to current views. Slavery? Cold blooded murder? Worse than that? How about a law in it that says that a rebellious son must be stoned to death by village? There is many laws in it that's like that. Anyway... I honestly think the idea of "god" is just infectious memes running around since dawn of humankind. In early era, it may have given humankind survival skills, but now?

It's useless for last few thousands of years. It alone has caused a thousand gallon of blood spilled compared to single drop of government-related war.

When we found out lead was poisonous to us, we stopped using it in silverware. It's time we the humankind realized that religion is now poisonous to us.
on Feb 01, 2006

In early era, it may have given humankind survival skills, but now?


I have read too many stories about how their faith helped people in the worst situations to share your cynical view.
on Feb 01, 2006
Saying tha ta magical super being witnessing creation is "Better" than a theory is just crazy talk.


Only to unbelievers.

I don't place your limits on my God. I have too much personal evidence of His work in my life to do that.

on Feb 01, 2006
It's time we the humankind realized that religion is now poisonous to us.


To use Karma's words..."That is absurd."
on Feb 01, 2006
I have read too many stories about how their faith helped people in the worst situations to share your cynical view.

Thats it, exactly. Stories. Humanity's imagination is unbounded. Have you seen the sci-fi/fantasy section yet? There is thousands of new books. In Powell's used and new books, there is easily millions of stories.

I have too much personal evidence of His work in my life to do that.

Sorry, I don't take stories as proof.

To use Karma's words..."That is absurd."


To support that claim you have to present proof. Otherwise it's just a personal dogma speaking. You simply gave a blanket statement to my questions.


Yet more examples of people turning brain off and using dogma and blanket statements as "proof". Bible encourages this kind of thinking. I have met many christans. Large percent of them said that they believe in their version of christian based on "feeling", "by soul", or many of that type of reasons.
on Feb 01, 2006
Eywitnesses?

Matthew walked with Jesus and wrote his account. Mark a companion to Peter wrote his gospel using Peter's eyes. Luke, a companion to Paul wrote his gospel and said right off in Chap 1:

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the first to write to thee......that you might know the certainty of those things.

John also wrote 5 books and was the disciple especially loved of Jesus. He died an OLD man in Ephesus after writing on the Isle of Patmos in and around 95 AD. He was the last to die.

Peter died in AD67 and had already written 2 books outside of what Mark had written.

Not only was the NT written by eyewitnesses but the first century writers wrote about John and how John ministered to them. /This is outside of scripture and has never been questioned.

No one witnessed creation....this is true. Same is true for evolution. Both have to be taken as faith.

If you notice creation takes up very little space in the bible. God is much more concerned with his relationship to mankind than he was in being Creator God.
on Feb 01, 2006
Otherwise it's just a personal dogma speaking


Prove Love.

Oh wait, you can't. Must just be personal dogma.
on Feb 01, 2006
Tova: Paul admits that some things he says are of his own opinion, not the mandate of God. If that is the case, can you really say that everything in the Bible is the word of God? Look at, say the Song of Solomon which begins " The song of songs, which is Solomon's." Or Proverbs, which begins: "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;"

The Bible itself acknoledges that some of it are the words of men, and some pretty important parts, too, given that Paul is most often the basis for our American conservative Christian doctrine. If Paul, himself, can say:

"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

Then you have to understand that Paul was giving his opinions to these churches on how they should be run, and more than once says that things should be a particular way, but in terms of God or the religion "We have no such custom". IF that is the case, how many other mandates given out by Moses, or by David, or Solomon were their opinion and not the mandate of God?

The fact is several hundred years ago some folks tried to put together what they THOUGHT was the most likely of the material they had to be directly INSPIRED by God. I think that it is the height of danger to unquestioningly believe that a book printed by men is the voice of God talking to you.

That said, those are my beliefs, and yours may vary as you please. I just want everyone to accept that the Bible isn't a book that someone carried down from God's mountain, rather it is something that most Christians believe was written BY MEN under the direct inspiration of God. That may well be true, but it is a matter of belief, not fact.
on Feb 01, 2006
Well said BakerStreet.
on Feb 01, 2006
Bakerstreet: Exactly. I once saw a sticker on a truck that says this: "Big book says it, I believe it. No argument. This settles it." That is a example of extreme dogma. I have wondered how many times bible has been changed since it's original writing. What doesn't help is translations, which may change the meaning of some words.

Prove Love.

Oh wait, you can't. Must just be personal dogma.


Love is just a set of human emotions. It's not a "fact" per se, therefore not provable. Besides, I didn't talk about love at all. You're trying to dodge my point, but you actually gave me yet another example of blanket argument.
on Feb 01, 2006
Baker...because God said what His disciples bound on earth would be bound in heaven.

He gave them the authority to give their opinions and the churches to accept them as binding because He knew they'd be directed by the Holy Spirit.

Baker...for me personally, it is an issue of loyalty and an issue of will. I will not be disloyal to a mighty God by not believing He can control the contents of His book. Second, it is an act of my will to believe things I do not always understand. If I err, I choose to err on the side of God.

And last. When I apply these principles to my life, nothing but good comes from it. If I want to believe God created the world in 6 days, who does it hurt? Not me. Not you. Not anyone. And when I step out in faith, by an act of my will, God blesses me.

Why is it do you think in a court of law a person can get up and give their testimony about seeing something, or experiencing something, and it is considered evidence? Yet when it comes to faith, this sort of witness is scoffed? I can't speak about God in anyone else's life but my own.

As for David....God Himself says David was a man after His own heart. How could applying the things David says to my life displease God?

And Solomon. He was the wisest man to ever live up to that point. I search the proverbs and can't find one that is not full truth. How can a mere man do that on his own?

I don't know if I am a "literalist" because I am unsure how it is being used. But I do believe scripture is in the inerrant word of God.

For arguments sake, lets say some of its wrong.

Ok. How does believing its wrong and doubting an almighty God bring Him glory or me any good? I love Jesus. I enjoy my walk with Him. I see, feel, and hear Him whenever I reach for Him and often when I don't.

Someone on here talked about her journey. Well my journey led me to Christ. He wasn't my first pick, or my second, and honestly not even my third, but He is home to me now.

And because I believe He is all knowing, all powerful, I know I can trust Him to protect His word.

So far, it has done nothing but benefited my life. Why should I doubt Him now?

I just want everyone to accept that the Bible isn't a book that someone carried down from God's mountain, rather it is something that most Christians believe was written BY MEN under the direct inspiration of God. That may well be true, but it is a matter of belief, not fact.


I know the Bible was written by the hands of men. But I believe Jesus was standing right over their shoulder breathing the words into their ears.
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9